Statev.

SurenderSingh

INTHECOURTOFSH.SUSHANTCHANGOTRA,
METROPOLITANMAGISTRATE(SOUTH)05,
SAKETCOURTS,NEWDELHI
State

versus

SurenderSingh
FIRNo.81/03
PSMehrauli
U/s25ArmsAct

JUDGMENT
SerialNo.ofthecase
: 28/1/03

Dateofcommission

Dateofinstitutionofthecase : 21.05.2004

Nameofcomplainant

: Ct.Shri.Bhagwan

Nameofaccused

: Surender Singh S/o Sh.

Balbir Singh, R/o H. No.
8116/3, Mehrauli, New
Delhi.

Offencecomplainedof

: U/s25ArmsAct

Pleaofaccused

: Pleadednotguilty

Argumentsheardon

: 07.06.2016

Finalorder

: Acquitted

10 Dateofjudgment

: 21.02.2003

: 07.06.2016

BRIEFFACTSANDREASONSFORDECISION
1.

Thebrieffactsofthecaseoftheprosecutionare

that on 21.02.2003 at about 11.30 PM, near Auila Maszid

Mehrauli,NewDelhi,accusedSurenderSinghwasfoundin
possession of one countrymade pistol which was loaded
FIRNo.81/03PS:Mehrauli

1of12

Statev.SurenderSingh

with three live cartridges. Two live cartridges were also

recovered from right pocket of his pant. He was carrying
weapon and cartridges without any license. Accordingly,
presentFIRu/s25ArmsActwasregistered.
2.

After completion of

investigation, the

chargesheet was filed. Copy of challan was supplied to

accusedincomplianceofsection207ofCrPC.
3.

Primafaciecaseofcommissionofoffenceunder

Section25ArmsActwasmadeoutagainstaccused.Charge
under Section 25 Arms Act was framed on 04.12.2006.
Accusedpleadednotguiltyandclaimedtrial.
4.

Inordertoproveitscase,prosecutionexamined

sixwitnesses.PW1Sh.P.C.Hotaprovedthesanctionorder
u/s39ofArmsActasEx.PW1/A.
5.

PW2 ASI Subhash Chand deposed that he

collectedtheFSLreportandobtainedSanctionu/s39Arms
ActfromAddl.DCP/SDnamelySh.P.C.Hota.
6.

PW3SIBirsaOraonandPW4Ct.ShriBhagwan

deposed about the manner, place and time when the

recovery of country made pistol and live cartridge was
effectedfromtheaccused.Theyprovedroughsketchofone
country made pistol and live cartridges as Ex. PW3/A,
seizurememoofcountrymadepistolandlivecartridgeas
Ex.PW3/B.SIBirsaOraonrecordedthestatementofCt.Shri
BhagwanandpreparedrukkaEx.PW3/C.Theyprovedthe
FIRNo.81/03PS:Mehrauli

2of12

Statev.SurenderSingh

site plan Ex. PW3/D. They also proved arrest memo of

accusedEx.PW3/EandpersonalsearchmemoEx.PW3/F.
Theyalsoprovedthedisclosurestatementofaccusedvide
memoEx.PW3/G.PW4Ct.ShriBhagwanprovedtherukka
Ex.PW4/A.Theyalsoidentifiedthecountrymadepistoland
cartridgesEx.P1(colly).
7.

PW 5 Sh. Puneet Puri, Senior Scientific Officer

(Ballistics) deposed that on 10.06.2003, he examined the

caseproperty.Thecountrymadepistolwasinworkingorder
andtestfirewasconductedsuccessfully.ThecardridgeA1to
A3wasaliveandwastestfiredthroughcountrymadepistol
markedEx.F1.TheEx.F1/A1wasfirearm/ammunitionas
defined in the Arms Act 1959 and he proved his detailed
reportEx.PW5/A.
8.

PW6HCAshokKumarbroughttheregisterNo.

19.ThekattaandthreeroundsweredepositedinMalkhana
on 22.02.2003 with mud no. 1797 and same be produced
beforethecourtandsealedwithcourtseal.ThesameisEx.
P1.
9.

PE was closed on 07.04.2016. Statement of

accused u/s 313 Cr. PC was recorded on 03.06.2016.

Accusedoptednottoleadanyevidenceindefence.
10.

IhaveheardtheargumentsofLd.APPaswellas

ofld.defencecounselandgonethroughevidenceonrecord.
11.
FIRNo.81/03PS:Mehrauli

As per chapter 22 rule 49 of the Punjab Police

3of12

Statev.SurenderSingh

Rules, which is reproduced herein for ready reference:

Chapter22Rule49ofPunjabPoliceRules,1934,provides
asunder:
''22.49MatterstobeenteredinRegister
No.IIThefollowingmattersshall,amongstothers,
beentered:
(c)Thehourofarrivalanddepartureon
duty at or from a police station of all enrolled
policeofficersofwhateverrank,whetherpostedat
thepolicestationorelsewhere,withastatementof
thenatureoftheirduty.Thisentryshallbemade
immediatelyonarrivalorpriortothedepartureof
theofficerconcernedandshallbeattestedbythe
latterpersonallybysignatureorseal.
Note:ThetermPoliceStationwillincludeallplaces
suchasPoliceLinesandPolicePostswhereRegisterNo.IIis
maintained.
12.

Inthepresentcase,theabovesaidprovisionhas

notbeencompliedwithbyprosecution.Therelevantentries
regarding the arrival and departure of the police officials
havenotbeenprovedonrecord.
13.

Atthisjuncture,itwouldberelevanttorefertoa

caselawreportedas RattanLalV/sState,1987(2)Crimes
29theHon'bleDelhiHighCourtithasbeenheldthat,

FIRNo.81/03PS:Mehrauli

4of12

Statev.SurenderSingh

if the investigating agency

deliberately ignores to comply with the
provisionsoftheActthecourtswillhave
to approach their action with
reservations.Thematterhastobeviewed
withsuspicioniftheprovisionsoflaware
not strictly complied with and the least
thatcanbesaidisthatitissodonewith
anobliquemotive.Thisfailuretobringon
record, the DD entries creates a
reasonable doubt in the prosecution
versionandattributesobliquemotiveon
thepartoftheprosecution.
14.

Inthepresentcase,accusedhasbeenchargedfor

committinganoffencepunishableunderSection25ofThe
ArmsAct,1959. Inordertoprovetheguiltoftheaccused,
prosecution has to prove that the accused was found in
possessionofonecountrymadepistolwithlivecartridgesas
per seizure memo which is in contravention of the
notification issued by Delhi Administration and thereby
committedanoffencepunishableunderSection25ofThe
Arms Act, 1959. As per the case of the prosecution, the
accusedwascaughtwithonecountrymadepistolwithlive
cartridges on 21.02.2003 at about 11.30 PM near Aulia

FIRNo.81/03PS:Mehrauli

5of12

Statev.SurenderSingh

Masjid, Mehrauli, New Delhi. The spot is a busy public

place. Hence, there must be number of public persons
presentatthespotatthetimeofallegedrecovery.However,
the witnesses have not deposed regarding any concrete
efforttojoinpublicwitnessesmadebythematthetimeof
affectingtheallegedrecoveryofonecountrymadepistoland
threelivecartridgesdespitetheiravailabilityonthespot.
15.

Public witnesses were admittedly not joined in

investigation though available. The testimony of official

witnesses does not find any corroboration from any
independentsource.IntheopinionofthisCourt,thenon
joining of public witness is fatal to the prosecution case,
particularlywhennoreasonableexplanationhasbeengiven
by prosecution for not joining public witnesses. In case
titledasRoopChandVs.StateofHaryanareportedasCC
Cases3(HC),itwasheldthat,Wherethepolicehasfailed
to join independent witnesses in the investigation despite
their availability and further failed to take action against
those who refused to take part in investigation nor their
nameswerenoteddownbythepolice,theexplanationofthe
police for not joining independent witnesses is an
afterthoughtandliabletoberejected.
16.

InthecaseofHemRajv.StateofHaryanaAIR

2005SC2110,ithasbeenobservedthat:
The fact that no independent
FIRNo.81/03PS:Mehrauli

6of12

Statev.SurenderSingh

witness though available, was examined

andnotevenanexplanationwassoughtto
begivenfornotexaminingsuchwitnessis
aseriousinfirmityintheprosecutioncase.
Amongst the independent witnesses one
whowasverymuchintheknowofthings
from the beginning was not examined by
the prosecution. Nonexamination of
independentwitnessbyitselfmaynotgive
rise to adverse inference against the
prosecution. However,whentheevidence
of the alleged eyewitnesses raise serious
doubtsonthepointoftheirpresenceatthe
timeofactualoccurrence,theunexplained
omission to examine the independent
witnesswouldassumesignificance.
In the case of Sahib Singh v. Sate of

17.

PunjabAIR1997SC2417,ithasbeenheldasunder:
Havinggonethroughtherecordwe
findmuchsubstanceineachoftheabove
contentions. Before conducting a search
theconcernedpoliceofficerisrequiredto
call upon some independent and
respectablepeopleofthelocalitytowitness
FIRNo.81/03PS:Mehrauli

7of12

Statev.SurenderSingh

the search. In a given case it may so

happen that no such person is available
or,evenifavailable,isnotwillingtobea
party to such search. It may also bethat
afterjoiningthesearch,suchpersonslater
on turn hostile. In any of these
eventualities the evidence of the police
officerswhoconductedthesearchcannot
bedisbelievedsolelyonthegroundthatno
independentandrespectablewitness was
examined to prove the search but if it is
found as in the present case that no
attemptwasevenmadebytheconcerned
police officer to join with him some
persons of the locality who were
admittedly available to witness the
recovery, it would affect the weight of
evidenceofthePoliceOfficer,thoughnot
itsadmissibility.
18.

In the case of D. V. Shanmugham v. State of

A.P.,AIR1997SC2583ithasbeenobservedasunder:
It also appeared from the evidence of
PW2andPW8thattherewereseveralotherpeople
who witnessed the occurrence and they are not the
FIRNo.81/03PS:Mehrauli

8of12

Statev.SurenderSingh

residents of that locality. If such independent

witnesseswereavailableandyetwerenotexamined
by the prosecution and only those persons who are
relatedtothedeceasedwereexaminedtheninsucha
situation the prosecution case has to be scrutinised
withmorecareandcaution.
19.

In the case of Pawan Kumar Vs. The Delhi

Administration, 1989 Cr.LJ 127 Delhi, in which it was

observedasfollows:

KalamSinghhastoadmitthatatthetimeof

thearrestandrecoveryoftheknife,therewasalotofrush
ofpublicatthebusstopnearSubhashBazar.Accordingto
JagbirSingh,hedidnotjoinanypublicwitnessinthecase
while according to Kalam Singh, no public person was
presentthere.Ithardlystandstoreasonthatataplacelike
abusstopnearSubhashBazar,therewouldbenoperson
presentatacrucialtimelike7.30pmwhenthereisalotof
rush of commuters for boarding the buses to their
respectivedestinations.Admittedly,thereisnoimpediment
inbelievingtheversionofthepoliceofficialsbutforthat
theprosecutionhastolayagoodfoundation.Atleastone
ofthemshouldhavedeposedthattheytriedtocontactthe
public witnesses or that they refused to join the
investigation. Hereisacasewherenoeffortwasmadeto
FIRNo.81/03PS:Mehrauli

9of12

Statev.SurenderSingh

joinanypublicwitnesseventhoughnumberofthemwere
present. Noplausiblefromthesideoftheprosecutionis
forthcomingfornotjoiningtheIndependentwitnessesin
caseofaseriousnaturelikethepresentone.Itmaybethat
there is an apathy on the part of the general public to
associatethemselveswiththepoliceraidsortherecoveries
butthatapart,atleasttheIOshouldhavemadeanearnest
efforttojointheindependentwitnesses.Noattemptinthis
directionappearstohavebeenmadeandthis,byitself,isa
circumstancethrowingdoubtonthearrestortherecovery
oftheknifefromthepersonoftheaccused.''
20.

In the case of Sadhu Singh Vs. State of

Haryana 2000(2)CCCasesHC73,theCourttooknoteof
the fact that public witnesses were not joined in
investigationtoacquittheaccused.
21.

InthecaseofMassaSinghVs.StateofPunjab

2000(2)C.C.CasesHC11,convictionwassetasideonthe
ground that it was obligatory on the part of investigating
officertotakeassistanceofindependentwitnessestolend
authenticitytotheinvestigationconductedbyhim.Itwas
observedasunder:
The recovery has been effected from a public
place. The Investigating Officer could have taken the
trouble to associate an independent witness to get the
FIRNo.81/03PS:Mehrauli

10of12

Statev.SurenderSingh

attestation of such independent witness regarding the

authenticity of the investigation conducted by him. This
aspectofthecasehasnotbeenproperlyappreciatedbythe
Courtbelow.
22.

InthecaseofChananSinghVs.State1986Crl.

Rev.No.720(P&H)94,itwasheldthatitwasobligatoryon
thepartofthepolicetojoinindependentwitnessesandthe
statementofofficialwitnessthatwitnessesrefusedtojoin
investigationwasrejectedasanafterthought.
23.

In the cases of Gurbel Singh Vs. State of

Punjab 1991 Crl. Rev. No.504 (P&H) and Dhanpat Vs.

StateofPunjab2000(1)CCCasesHC52,ithasbeenheld
that nonjoining of independent witnesses is fatal to the
prosecutioncaseandaccusedisentitledtobenefitofdoubt.
24.

There are other inconsistencies on the record

which have not been explained. According to the

depositionsofprosecutionwitnesses,thecasepropertywas
first seized, sketch of one countrymade pistol and live
cartridges was prepared and then Rukka was sent for
registration of FIR. Thus,according to the witnesses, FIR
wasregisteredafterseizureofcountrymadepistolandlive
cartridges and the sketch was prepared. However, the
seizurememoandsketchbeartheFIRnumber.Atthetime
oftheseizure,FIRnumberwasnotavailableandtherefore,
FIRnumbercouldnothavefiguredontheseizurememoor
FIRNo.81/03PS:Mehrauli

11of12

Statev.SurenderSingh

on the sketch. The existence of FIR number on seizure

memosuggeststhattheseizurememowaspreparedafter
the registration of FIR and is therefore antetimed. This
erodesthecredibilityofthewitnesseswhohasstatedthat
theseizurememowaspreparedonthespotandbeforethe
registrationofFIR.
25.

In view of the aforementioned facts and

circumstances,ithastobeconcludedthatprosecutionhas
failed to prove its case against the accused beyond
reasonable doubt. Accused is given benefit of doubt.
Accordingly,theaccusedSurenderSinghisherebyacquitted
foroffencepunishableunderSection25ofTheArmsAct,
1959. Case property be confiscated to the State and be
destroyedafterexpiryofperiodofappeal.
26.

Theaccusedwasdirectedtofurnishbailbonds

andsuretybondsu/s437ACr.PC.
Announcedintheopen
courton07.06.2016

FIRNo.81/03PS:Mehrauli

(SUSHANTCHANGOTRA)
MM5(South),SaketCourts
NewDelhi

12of12